DOOM Eternal Benchmark Test & Performance Analysis

[r.h.p]

I always think your reviews are pretty spot on on @W1zzard , so I'm a little bit disappointed with this result . I think ill wait for a $ 35 sale on steam

 

[thepath]

The game does not really need more than 6GB video memory (even if it consume more than that when you have 2080 Ti)

There is no issue or any stutter on 6GB regardless what resolution or setting you play

On 3GB/4GB cards, it only causes issue when you play at ultra-nightmare setting and high resolution. But let us be honest who is going to play over 1080p on 3GB/4GB cards ?? Even if you play at 1440p, you can always lower some setting that does not have much impact on visuals
No big difference between GTX 1060 3GB and 6GB at 1080p (keep in mind that 6GB model has few cuda cores more), just lower few unimportant setting should make it easily on par with GTX 1060 6GB frame rate.

 

[nguyen]

Now I'm torn between finishing the game or wait for the RTX patch...knowing that I will have nothing to do for the next 4-6 weeks...

 

[ARF]

why not CPU performance ? i want to know how much faster is Intel over AMD junkzen in this game

Can't find any CPU Ryzen-Core analysis on Doom Eternal but it can be seen that the game doesn't need more than a 4-core/8-thread which is just disappointing
Doom 2016 runs not bad on the old FX processor back in 2016.

Doom Eternal PC Performance Analysis

Doom Eternal is powered by id Tech 7 and uses the Vulkan API, and it's time to benchmark it and see how it performs on the PC platform.

www.dsogaming.com

DOOM Benchmarked: Graphics & CPU Performance Tested

Benchmarks: CPU Performance. The Doom reboot is a gift to the PC Master Race. The 4K visuals are amazing, excellent high resolution textures cover every surface, the lighting and shadows...

www.techspot.com

 

[Shou Miko]

I guess these tests are with the protected exe file and not the unprotected exe file that Bethesda actually forgot to remove

I can see that my GTX 1080 Ti should still do well in here so maybe I should try this game soon

 

[r.h.p]

why not CPU performance ? i want to know how much faster is Intel over AMD junkzen in this game

lol , im no brainiak pal but what the ….

 

[ARF]

lol , im no brainiak pal but what the ….

He has a point, though. It's interesting to see if Ryzen is faster than Core in this game. It depends on the particular optimisation and IPC here.

 

[EarthDog]

Doom 2016 runs not bad on the old FX processor back in 2016.

I think we have different definitions of not bad, lol. the 9590 is at 4.7 Ghz and 8c/8t, while a 2c/4t CPU is 3 fps/less than 3% faster (and its minimum are higher). It will play just fine, but when there is any kind of perspective put up against them, they look pretty pathetic. A sandybridge quad core beats them.

 

[r.h.p]

He has a point, though. It's interesting to see if Ryzen is faster than Core in this game. It depends on the particular optimisation and IPC here.

i want to know how much faster is Intel over AMD junkzen in this game

Spam Comment in my opinion

 

[infrared]

Just had an hour or so messing around in this game, it runs weird on my system. Acts like it's CPU bottlenecked pretty badly, and yet CPU usage is very low (about 25%) and spread across all threads nicely. I'm getting 100-120fps almost regardless of graphics settings, 65-70% GPU utilization.

I wonder if this is Denuvo DRM related perhaps, or a quirk with how it's coded and 1st gen ryzen not handling it well? idk.

1800X @ 4.1ghz all core, with 3466mhz 14-14-14-28 (and tight sub timings) and a 1080Ti.. All other games run beautifully on this combo, I didn't expect performance issues with Doom.

edit - I guess it runs silky smooth at least, I'll turn off the afterburner overlay and just enjoy it I think

Ignore above.. I think it was an overlay causing weird problems, my bro was playing on my rig without anything else running and it was running really well. 1440p ultra nightmare and it's frequently 130-165fps in gameplay now, very happy.

 

[EarthDog]

Just had an hour or so messing around in this game, it runs weird on my system. Acts like it's CPU bottlenecked pretty badly, and yet CPU usage is very low (about 25%) and spread across all threads nicely. I'm getting 100-120fps almost regardless of graphics settings, 65-70% GPU utilization.

I wonder if this is Denuvo DRM related perhaps, or a quirk with how it's coded and 1st gen ryzen not handling it well? idk.

1800X @ 4.1ghz all core, with 3466mhz 14-14-14-28 (and tight sub timings) and a 1080Ti.. All other games run beautifully on this combo, I didn't expect performance issues with Doom.

edit - I guess it runs silky smooth at least, I'll turn off the afterburner overlay and just enjoy it I think

I'd guess the slightly slower IPC and lower clocks is somehow managing to limit things? No idea until we see a CPU comparison..

 

[spectatorx]

Can't find any CPU Ryzen-Core analysis on Doom Eternal but it can be seen that the game doesn't need more than a 4-core/8-thread which is just disappointing
Doom 2016 runs not bad on the old FX processor back in 2016.
...

I can confirm with my own experience running doom on fx-6300+radeon r9 380 was more than just playable experience, especially on vulkan. I enjoyed the game a lot and will wait for decent discount on eternal. Proof:

Spoiler

Doom Performance on AMD FX 6300@4GHz + Radeon R9 380 4GB

 

[Makaveli]

RX 5700 XT is 10% faster than Radeon VII at 1920x1080.
While the Radeon VII is 5% faster than RX 5700 XT at 3840x2160.



1920x1080:
View attachment 148673

3840x2160:
View attachment 148674

not really that surprising.

The Radeon VII has more Vram and the Rx 5700 has higher clocks.

But its also Vega Vs Navi so two different arch's

 

[sujauktas]

Vega 56 on par with GTX 1080 on 1440p! Vega 56 still puffin those leaves, still not loving 1080!

 

[W1zzard]

Why the 2 most pupular cards(GTX 1650/Super) are missing?

Added GTX 1650 Super

 

[ARF]

Vega 56 on par with GTX 1080 on 1440p! Vega 56 still puffin those leaves, still not loving 1080!

The performance is still there where it has been all the time since 2017.

Doom 2016 at RX Vega 64 release in 2017:

AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 8 GB Review

Our AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 review confirms that the company achieved major performance improvements over their last-generation Polaris and Fiji cards: Vega is faster than the GTX 1080. We tested six different performance configurations of the Vega 64, with surprising results.

www.techpowerup.com

Doom 2020:

DOOM Eternal Benchmark Test & Performance Analysis - 26 Graphics Cards Compared

DOOM Eternal is the long-awaited sequel to the epic DOOM series. There's even more carnage, and gameplay is super fast-paced. Built upon the id Tech 7 engine, visuals are excellent, and graphics performance is outstanding. We tested the game on all modern graphics cards at Full HD, 1440p and 4K...

www.techpowerup.com

 

[Manoa]

hardware and performance are nice but the game suckx

 

[mouacyk]

hardware and performance are nice but the game suckx

yeah, way too much extra for a doom game. it's trying to be a borderlands game

 

[ARF]

It would be nice if it has Quake 3 style of multi-player maps with this year graphics.

 

[GurthBrooks]

As I see there is 19-21% between RTX2080 and GTX1080Ti. How? It looks like Nvidia breaks GTX1080Ti from driver.

Looks like a 2070 performs same as a 1080ti in Eternal!

 

[Deleted member 190774]

As support matures for new hardware features, performance will pull away from last generation -- leaves a bit of a bitter after taste too.

Only amongst those who flocked to buy a 1080ti while it seemed to offer similar performance to the 2080 for less money in the then current raft of games. I know there was a lot of negative sentiment around the 2080.

Those that went 2080, will now feel relief that their investment is starting to show some benefits.

 

[brutlern]

I can get anywhere between 100 fps to 250 fps on 1440p ultra nightmare (2080 super). That's a variation of 150 fps. The charts show 160 avg fps for a 2080 super, but unless everyone can run the same benchmark getting anything close to a meaningful result is exercise in futility. Is there a proper in game benchmark? Maybe some console commands?

 

[EarthDog]

I can get anywhere between 100 fps to 250 fps on 1440p ultra nightmare (2080 super). That's a variation of 150 fps. The charts show 160 avg fps for a 2080 super, but unless everyone can run the same benchmark getting anything close to a meaningful result is exercise in futility. Is there a proper in game benchmark? Maybe some console commands?

So long as it's the same section repeated for each card, it is, the takeaway is RELATIVE performance between cards, not fps. Even an integrated benchmark doesnt do a great job of actual in-game fps either.

 

[ARF]

What are the graphics driver settings, though? Radeon Software and Nvidia Control Panel ?
There is quite noticeable difference in the results if you tweak one or two settings.

 

[Non_NPC]

Sorry if I missed it, but is there SLi support? Seems like 2 2080's would be real sweet at 4k.